Testimony of Steve Osborn

I, too, appreciate the opportunity to address the Board today and appreciate
the time you are spending going to the public for information. One of the
theories of the assassination revolves around the possibility that there may
have been some involvement by persons with experience in the U.S. intelligence
community.

In my study and research of the assassination I have discovered and
investigated supporting information of the presence of an intelligence unit of
the U.S. Army having been present and on assignment in Dealey Plaza just
before, during and immediately after the assassination. To the best of my
knowledge, information on this unit has not been released publicly.

In 1992, as the fury of the public resulted in the proposed legislation which
created your Board, I came across an individual who claimed to have been very
near Dealey Plaza during the assassination. Now, as a researcher, you can
understand that this immediately caught my attention, and I began to question
this gentleman about the experience.

Now before I tell you the entire story, I want you to know that I had a
difficult time believing his story the more and more I thought about it. Even
though I had personal experience with some of the devices and the techniques
that this group used, I was still very skeptical, as you may be also. But
with further investigation I convinced myself that it technically could have
been accomplished, and I think you will be similarly so impressed about the
possibility when we are finished.

The gentleman I spoke with proceeded to tell me he was in the Army Station in
Fort Hood, in Clean, Texas. On the day of the assassination his group, a
communications group, was assigned the task of observing and videotaping the
presidential motorcade as it moved through the Plaza. This unit had no
similar assignment in any other Texas city during the President's visit, and
they were only to tape that portion of the motorcade as it proceeded through
Dealey Plaza.

Now if this event actually occurred, if it actually happened, it makes their
activity highly suspicious and adds new questions to the assassination,
particularly with reference to the possible foreknowledge of the assassination
of intelligence personnel.

In my conversations with this gentleman, I asked questions of a technical
nature trying to discovery how their assignment was accomplished. After
discovering that the camera signals were transported by wireless means back to
the control studio, which was actually a semi-tractor-trailer, I found myself
doubting that this type of equipment was available in 1963.

I knew that ham radio operators have been sending television signals easily
for a number of years, and I had also participated in that hobby. I also knew
that videotaping was still in its infant years in 1963. I started to research
available equipment to see if this story had any possibility of being true.

I have another handout that I would like to give you. Now that we know that
equipment existed in 1963, and I can tell you a little bit about the
equipment, if you would like, in the question and answer, I can relate his
entire story, the following information was obtained over approximately three
separate conversations with this individual. I had extracted a verbal consent
to get his story on videotape, like any good researcher would, but when the
time came for doing so, his attitude on the matter had completely reversed and
I am only left today with the recollection, you know, the notes that I had
taken from the conversation and the subsequent information by my independent
investigation.

This military communications group had several cameras stationed around the
Plaza. The signals from the cameras were sent back to a semi-tractor-trailer
acting as a mobile studio parked a short distance from the Plaza. Each camera
had a preview monitor and videotape machine associated with it inside the
trailer recording the view of each camera. There was no sound recorded in
this assignment.

Each videotape position had a single person responsible for its proper
operation. Each position these men occupied was shielded from the others so
that they could only see the preview for their individual camera. Each man
saw the assassination occur from a different perspective of their monitors.

About 15 minutes after the assassination, a group of men appeared who
identified themselves as FBI agents. These agents seized all the equipment
used to videotape the motorcade. Each man was put on a bus which had been
summoned to the scene and they were all driven back to their base. Upon their
arrival, they were simply told to forget it.

Finding that there was equipment available in 1963 that would do this made it
easier for me to accept the story I have just related to you. Several things
have made me believe that this group was an intelligence unit.

First, the gentleman would not give me the name of his unit.

Secondly, this individual advised me that his 201 file was inaccessible.

Thirdly, he offered his opinion as pertaining to the reason his group was sent
there, which would probably have been in line with the responsibility of an
intelligence unit.

Fourth, having reflected on his story and what I have what I have additionally
discovered, I am impressed that he realizes that he probably said more things
to me than he should have revealed. At one point, he mentioned to me that he
was allowed by a letter from the military to discuss some things in relation
to his duties on the day of the assassination, but I believe he probably went
further than he was allowed.

All these things collectively make me believe that this unit in Dealey Plaza
was an intelligence unit. Still, one important step in my investigation was
to find some additional evidence that the event occurred. You should know
that there is some possible photographic evidence of this communication group
being in Dealey Plaza that day, and I would be happy to provide you with
further information on that if time allows at the end of my presentation.

Some requested things I would like to see the Board do, obviously what was
recorded on this videotapes would be of invaluable aid to a serious study of
the assassination, as well as cast more suspicion on the intelligence
community. An attempt should be made by the Board to locate the tapes and
request that another government agency attempt to get the exact electrical
format determined and a video machine constructed to bring their images to
view. Duplication to modern day formats would then make the tapes available
publicly.

So far as locating the videotapes are concerned, the Dallas Field Office of
the FBI and the Bureau Headquarters may have information or be in possession
of the tapes. If there remains an estate of the late J. Edgar Hoover, they
may have some information or be in possession of the tapes themselves.

If the men who seized the tapes were not real FBI agents, then CIA, military
intelligence and other splinter groups of the intelligence community should be
checked. Also, I would inquire of Mr. E. Howard Hunt, if he is still alive,
as to his knowledge of the tapes and their subsequent disposition. There
exists a possibility that he may even have them in his possession.

Regarding locations where you might find documents supporting this activity, I
would suggest beginning with the records at Fort Hood. I would not be
familiar with other depositories of documents, and you will probably have to
use some of your existing source to hopefully lead you in the correct
directions.

There seems to be a problem of gag orders that I would like to address also,
and the fact that this individual I had interviewed had received notification
that he did not have to continue to keep certain things confidential is
further indication that there continue to be individuals who continue are
under an obligation of confidentiality.

I believe this brings up an interesting problem for the Board. There appear
to have been several instances of this happening to individuals required by
military order or other Executive Branch order not to discuss any details of
what they know of the assassination or its subsequent investigations, perhaps
even the Board members itself have been required to sign promises of
confidentiality.

Since these individuals do not have the permission of disclosure, many have
not written of their experiences or granted interviews to members of the media
or the research community to record their recollection. This will give
history an incomplete record of this tragic event as well as making this
information unavailable to the Board for review and release.

Therefore, I believe and propose that the Board consider asking the President
of the United States as Commander and Chief to rescind any and all standing
orders issued from any Department or part of the U.S. Government requiring the
confidentiality of the information retained by these individuals, whether that
knowledge is in written or memory form. If our government is really serious
about full disclosure of all facts surrounding the assassination, he will
rescind these orders, prevent them from being renewed and allow a complete
compilation of personal records and recollections. This will allow the Review
Board to further fulfill and properly perform its congressionally mandated
task.

Additionally, as distasteful and wild as the thought is that the American
intelligence community could be involved in such an event, I hope the Board
will keep an open mind as you sift through the records. Your work may be the
last official attempt to bring to the light of day this dark deed, so it is
vital for you to question everything you find.

Remember, if any intelligence personnel were involved, it is their profession
and they are very adept at covering up any evidence of their involvement in
any activity. I mean, would we as citizens expect anything else of them? In
any operation that U.S. intelligence personnel are involved in, we the
citizens would expect them to be able to complete their missions with expert
precision. We would expect that they would be able to cover up their
involvement as an agency and our involvement as a nation if the nature of the
task so dictated. We would expect them to have thought of every possible snag
in an operation and work to make their mission completely successful.

I have spoken with individuals involved in intelligence work or who have known
persons who were, and they have indicated that the intelligence community
could basically do anything they wanted, and we have had some recent
indications of that, of this, in the form of millions of dollars spent on
building projects unknown to Congress.

Be this right or wrong, we as citizens should have a great amount of respect
for and suspicion of the power that these individuals and agencies wield in
our world. Please keep this in mind as you ponder the information brought to
your attention in whatever form it is presented.

Finally, I would like to make a comment in relation to the Board's mandate.
One of the problems that certain individuals in our government have had with
the idea of releasing all the assassination records is that to do so may
compromise methods employed by the various intelligence agencies in their
covert activities. At first glance, we may take this to mean that it may make
it difficult for them to use these techniques in the future if they are made
known to the general public, but I would encourage the Board to consider that
it may be that many of these covert methods were used to carry out the
assassination of President Kennedy, whether by Americans or some other
government.

I have found considerable circumstantial evidence of more than a few
intelligence techniques used in the assassination that may not be generally
known. But if this assassination was accomplished by Americans from the
intelligence community, they have not only betrayed the citizenry of this
country by taking from them their President, but they have betrayed their
agencies and the U.S. public by making it necessary to uncover and publicly
expose their methods in order to bring satisfaction to the American people in
this matter. This betrayal of their agencies alone makes them no better than
Mr. Ames of recent history.

I again thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you very much.

Questions?

Go ahead, Dr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Osborn, in your testimony you indicated that information you
had gathered from a subsequent independent investigation helped you in forming
your conclusion that there was an intelligence unit in Dealey Plaza. Is there
any documentary information that you have been able to acquire as part of your
subsequent investigation?

MR. OSBORN: I have not made any attempts at that because I believe the story
so thoroughly. I felt that if I were to make any attempts to confirm any of
this or search for the tapes that those things might be destroyed, because
these tapes -- if you would like to discuss the photographic evidence, there
is one that would probably show a shooter behind the stockade fence, so I did
not want these materials because of something that I did to end up
disappearing. However, your mandate and your sources are much better than
anything that I could ever do.

DR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I would like to pose to you a set
of questions, if I may, and you can cut me off if I get too long-winded here,
as I am sure you will. Who are you?

MR. OSBORN: I am a citizen of the United States. I have not had any type of
military experience, so I probably approach this a little bit differently as a
citizen that would like to know what my government has been up to or persons
within my government have been up to, why I can't know, why it has been hushed
up so much.

I have been researching for approximately the last 15 years, not quite, and
have mostly focused my investigation on identifying the man who fired the
fatal head shot. These other things have just come about because of various
digging and this is one of the things that I hope to use to be able to further
identify that individual.

DR. HALL: I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, for the record, we could ask Mr.
Osborn to provide us with a biographical statement, if that would be
acceptable to you.

Can you provide us with the name of the individual with whom you spoke?

MR. OSBORN: Because I feel that he may have violated military orders, I
believe that he thought that he had originally been saying things he could,
and then the way that he froze up -- in fact, I have had several individuals
that have done that, I feel that he may be guilty of some sort of violation.
If the President were to rescind all those orders, I would be happy to provide
his name. At this point, because of the way that he did not really want to be
involved any more in the discussions, I feel incumbent upon myself for his
personal privacy not to reveal that.

DR. HALL: Did he ever provide to you any written information or did you take
any notes arising out of your conversations with this individual?

MR. OSBORN: The only thing that I really did was, from the conversations that
we had, I prepared a list of questions, because I do have a technical
background, I have been in electronics since I was 14, ham radio, and
television, and most recently personal communications, and so I was very
interested in the technical aspects of this because I doubted in my senses
that this could be done in 1963.

If you would look at the cameras, this is a fully transistorized camera. It
comes with a backpack transmitter so that you don't have to have a cable going
back to a videotape recorder, and this device was available in 1962 by a
company that regularly supplied the military with all kinds of camera
equipment and, as I also indicated, there is some photographic evidence that
exists that may possibly show one of these individuals. If you would like a
summation of that, I am prepared to do that.

DR. HALL: If you will document it, that would be helpful.

You also indicate on page 5 that he had mentioned to you that he was allowed
by a letter from the military to discuss some things in relation to his duties
on the day of the assassination. Now it would obviously be in the interest of
the Board, since you purport that a connection exists between this individual,
the military establishment, and the assassination, to be able to know the name
of that individual so that it would be possible to try to secure whatever copy
of a letter may have existed that would have been written to him by the
military.

MR. OSBORN: I will -- what I will do, sir, is, I will probably seek some
counsel on that to ensure that I, myself, do not get into a situation here
that may make me liable for something, and I will be glad to consider that for
you.

I was going to, let me go on record saying, I was going to ask that individual
for that document in the videotaped session, but because he cut everything
off, I was not able to actually view that document. So I had to just go from
my recollection as I made my notes as to what the individual had.

DR. HALL: One final question for you, if I may, Mr. Osborn, would your view
be that this Commission or this Board, rather, excuse me, should undertake to
disclose the names, identities of both living as well as deceased informants,
agents, and intelligence operatives of the United States Government?

MR. OSBORN: That certainly is a gray area, and the problem with dealing -- if
we are dealing with the intelligence community here in this time, they
certainly have at their disposal, shall we say, executive privilege, and the
rules are a little bit different when dealing with these type of people
because they can claim national security.

I think national security a lot of times can mean more than one thing. It can
mean security of our nation from its people being held in arms over something
that the government or people within the government have done, so I think they
really use the term national security quite widely, and I would fully expect
that if there were individuals from the intelligence community involved that
they would do everything in their power, like I had mentioned before, they are
very adept at covering up. So that is a gray area because we don't know if
these persons were really involved, and they may be saying that these are
operatives that we can't afford to let their names go. So we have to -- it is
going to have to be analyzed.

I used to think that it would be nice to have been a member of this Board,
after hearing what is going on today, I think I am kind of glad it is you.

DR. HALL: Would it be fair to say that any effort to pursue the line of
inquiry that you have set out would turn directly on an evidentiary and
documentary basis on being able to know the name of the individual, and
inasmuch as you have indicated that that person is known to you by name, there
is some responsibility here, I would think, to be able to assist the Board in
this matter in a significant way.

DR. GRAFF: I would like to ask this question with respect to the letter that
this young man received saying what he could say about his activities. Was
this a cover that he was being given, was this a story that was being laid
upon him so that he would have an answer when people asked what are you doing?

MR. OSBORN: I don't believe so. I believe this had been received by him a
number of years later.

DR. GRAFF: I see, I misunderstood that.

MR. OSBORN: Yes, this was a number of years later that these things were no
longer -- that certain things, and I never got into the exact details. I just
assumed that the things that he was telling me were things that I could know.
So I am sorry, I am not clear exactly what that letter said, or if it even
still exists.

DR. GRAFF: I see.

CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Anything further?

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Osborn.

The public hearing will stand in recess until promptly the hour of 2:00 p.m.,
and we will return and reconvene at that time.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00
p.m., this same day.]